Also, it involves whether or not you believe in other minds.
One day, Jack comes home, drunk, passes out on the floor, and is unconscious. Me and the other guys see this, sigh, clean him up, put him in bed, and, for fun, draw a “Kilroy Was Here” on his butt with a marking pen.
Later, is he going to be at all convincing in declaring that none of this happened, because he had no consciousness of it? We did. Is his the only consciousness, or are we willing to generalize to an objective universe (or at least a consensus universe?)
Am I the Red King? When I wake up, do all of you just vanish? That way lies roast rump of skunk, and madness.
Not the same thing.
“Why did whales evolve blowholes?” asks one to explain the evolutionary advantages that whales obtained from the blowhole. In other words, caused by what laws of nature?
“How did whales evolve blowholes?” asks one to explain either the principles of evolution, or the intermediate steps in that specific evolutionary process. In other words, In what manner?
More explanatory examples:
“Why did that tree fall?” – it was old and rotted and was struck by lightning (causative factors, as the tree had no volition).
“How did that tree fall?” – Rigidly and rotating around a fracture point along a northwesterly axis (descriptive factors explaining the details of the process, not the cause of the process).
hmm some hope for the long term haha…perhaps the system runs through on/off cycles? I suppose thats the Big Bang? (weirdest story I’ve EVER heard…haha…the Universe all compressed into one little point:)
I tend to towards the view that there has always been something…of some sort, whether we could understand it or not…
some questions for anyone who feels like answering:D
Whats the current view on entropy, and the heat “death” of the Universe?
Whats the current view on what time is, say before the Big Bang?
suggested reading would be OK!
I’m reading the book matching the OPs title here…its like a well researched sci fi story!! ha.:eek:
It looks a little as if runaway expansion may be the end, and the universe just opens out into nothingness. From our point of view, the galaxies all go away, and, later, perhaps all the stars in our own galaxy.
The heat-death is not avoided: in time, the stars all go out. But it’s lonelier this way. Bummer all around.
I’ve been pondering a form of this question for decades.
To me, it all boils down to this statement (which becomes more profound the more thought you invest in it):
*
If there wasn’t anything, there would be nothing.*
mmm
On the off chance you’re actually serious, a scientific theory is a conceptual framework that explains observations and allows for the prediction of new ones. It is not a guess or a general feeling of how thing sort of work.
While I haven’t read it, I’ve seen Krauss debate the ideas contained in it, and I have to say, his notion of nothing is a pretty something-y one: essentially, not unlike Stephen Hawking and many other physicists, he assumes some fitting physical state which from some viewpoint or another may look like ‘nothing’ which typically boils down to something like ‘the quantum vacuum’ or ‘a spacetime manifold of vanishing radius’, or something similar, and then shows how a universe might develop from that.
Most philosophers see this as essentially missing the point of the question: whatever a ‘spacetime manifold of vanishing radius’ might be, it’s not nothing, as it has definite properties. But having properties is typically a good indication that something isn’t nothing but, in fact, something; it’s what contributes the thingyness to something. In fact, whenever somebody tells you that he knows ‘how something comes from nothing’, he probably hasn’t understood the question, because his nothing must invariably possess the property of being able to give rise to something, which makes it not nothing. So this kind of answer trivializes the question by not starting out with nothing, but rather, with something; but how something can come from something is not nearly that difficult a question.
Krauss has attempted to dodge this criticism by pointing out that the concept of ‘nothing’ has changed throughout history, and that his argumentation applies to, say, a ‘physicist’s nothing’; but then, of course, the implication is simply that this ‘physicist’s nothing’ is not the nothing that is considered when asking why there is something instead of nothing.
Well, Half Man Half Wit, if Krauss dodged the question, then anytime someone (like our OP here) asks “Why is there something instead of nothing?”, then the only response possible is “Can you tell me about this ‘nothing’ that you propose is possible?”
If the “nothing” that you’re talking about has no properties at all, then the OP is a meaningless question from the outset.
How so? The question ‘why is there something instead of nothing’ does not entail that something must have come from nothing; it merely asks for an explanation of, well, why there is something rather than not-something. The existence of the universe remains an explanandum, while the existence of nothing would not have been (there would have been nothing to explain).
I’m afraid this sounds a lot like a “nothing of the gaps”, I guess just like philosophy was affected by the evidence of Einstein’s relativity, IMHO philosophers have to take this evidence about how there is something indeed in the areas that until recently they assumed to be nothing.
Hm, I’m not sure I get you here. I don’t think the idea that one could ‘find’ something where philosophers previously expected nothing is coherent—if one finds something there, then it just wasn’t nothing. This isn’t moving the goalposts; those are clearly defined from the outset: nothing is not anything. One good test is to see if one can subtract anything from whatever concept of nothing one entertains, and still gets something consistent—in that case, one wasn’t dealing with nothing. So, for instance, the quantum vacuum has the capacity of spontaneously generating virtual particle/anti-particle pairs. I could imagine taking that away, such that it no longer has that capacity; hence, the quantum vacuum is not nothing.
Additionally, as another litmus test, there’s a clear sense in which the quantum vacuum still requires explanation: why does it exist, and not something else? As long as one can still ask such questions, one isn’t talking about nothing.
Also, the Big Bang Theory and a whole lot of others got into a big free-for-all wrestling match, and all the others lost. The Steady State Theory was on the ropes for a good long time; some of us thought it might make a come-back. But nope.
At present, there isn’t any other theory competing with the Big Bang. A competitor isn’t even on the horizon. It’s the only explanation standing.
That doesn’t make it a fact. It makes it a winner.
